Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.66 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Chheda Lal Ram Autar And Ors. on 22 April, 1958
" On point (B), it appears from clause 15 of
the agreement that it provided for arbitration.
The suit was instituted by the landlady on
01.07.2004 after expiry of term of agreement.
Courts below have rightly held that after expiry
of five years, the agreement was non-existent
and the arbitration clause was not applicable.
This view finds support from the law laid down
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Union of India Vs.
Kishori Lal Gupta and Brothers, AIR 1959 SC
1362."
Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. ... on 1 February, 1997
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Samir Mukherjee vs Davinder K. Bajaj & Ors on 18 April, 2001
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Shukla Malhotra & Ors vs M/S.Vyasa Bank Limited on 22 April, 1998
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Deenar Builders Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Khoday Distileries Limited on 24 November, 1999
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Zulfiquar Ali Khan (Dead) Through Lrs & ... vs Straw Products Limited & Ors. on 4 August, 2000
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Delhi Jal Board vs Surendra P. Malik on 24 March, 2003
16. Even accepting the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant and for the time being, eliminating the said documents, that is, the
rent receipts and the TDS certificate from consideration, I am of the view that
the appellant in its pleadings having clearly admitted that there was a landlord-
tenant relationship, that a consolidated rent of Rs.15,000/- per month was
being paid by it to the respondent and also that the respondent had served upon
the appellant the notice to quit, which was replied to by the respondent, there
was no impediment to the passing of a decree for ejectment on the aforesaid
admissions, leaving the question of mesne profits to be tried on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties [See Surjit Sachdeva Vs. Kazakstan
Investment, 66 (1997) DLT 54; Samir Mukherjee Vs. Devinder K.Bajaj,
71(1998) DLT 477; Vikas Theatres Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 71 (1998) DLT
526; Shukla Malhotra Vs. Vyasa Bank Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124; Amar
C.Talwar Vs. Export Promo Council, 77(1999) DLT 809; Deenar Builders
Vs. Khoday Distilleries, 82(1999) DLT 809; Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw
RFA 274/2009 Page No. 11 of 16
Products, 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 347; Jasmer Singh Vs. Electronics Trade &
Tech (2002) I AD (Delhi) 281; R.K.Aggarwal Vs. ITDC, 1997(1) RCR 401;
Uttam Singh Dugal Vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; and Delhi Jal Board Vs.
Surendra P.Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151].
Shikharchand And Ors. vs Mst. Bari Bai And Ors. on 12 September, 1973
17. It is settled law that admissions need not be made expressly in the
pleadings. Even on the constructive admissions Court can proceed to pass a
decree in plaintiff's favour. In order to invoke the provisions of Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, admissions de hors pleadings may also be considered as is
evident from the use of the word "otherwise" in the said provision. [See
Shikharchand vs. Mst.